Monday, July 28, 2008

The case for hip resurfacing

In regard to the July 21 article on hip replacement: Having had one hip resurfaced more than 10 years ago and the other resurfaced more than four years ago, I read the article on hip repair with interest.

Perhaps the writer was overly influenced by total- replacement surgeons trying to protect their livelihood, but she unfortunately missed many of the advantages that resurfacing has over total replacement.

If you or your loved one needed hip implants, which procedure would you choose: the one that much more closely matches your original joint anatomically; the one with minimal chance that a future "revision" will be needed; the one that's more solid due to more surface area for stability and support; the one that doesn't wear out because it's not plastic rubbing against metal; the one enabling a more precise leg length meaning less stress on your back; the one providing a future with no activity restrictions?

Sorry, but the gold standard in hip repair is clearly resurfacing, not replacement.

David Grigg

La Quinta

read article